I would rather the drunk driver hit the tree and deal with his/her consequences, than hit my house or my neighbors during our sleep.
I would rather the drunk driver hit the tree and deal with his/her consequences, than hit my house or my neighbors during our sleep.
Yes if I live near a road I want trees/big fence/whatever so drunks don't take out my house. Yet if everyone does that, the number of traffic fatalities increases.
Of course it's a much harder stat to deliver who died and why versus just optimizing a single fatality count.
This problem ruins a lot of really nice things.
Not much of a realistic fix, is it?
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/10/191023075139.h...
Mass transit will NOT reduce auto transit: any driver who chooses to take mass transit will be replaced by a new driver on the road.
Civilized countries already solved this problem.
So if you're just building out transit while keeping road capacity the same (less common with dedicated bus lanes or light rail, because space for those is often created by converting former car lanes, but with "other off-grade transit" modes you need to make a conscious effort of reducing road capacity if reduced car usage is your goal), it's entirely possible that public transport use increases, while passenger miles travelled by car remain the roughly same long-term.
Driving isn't intrinsic. Transportation is important but has multiple solutions.
Unless they were distracted by a phone, the radio, a passenger, putting on make-up, etc.
Or fatigued.
It isn't that accidents are impossible but the impact speed if you were doing 30 mph is livable. If you were drunk doing 60 mph it wouldn't be.
But without trees they might run into someone walking or on their porch/front yard.
Historically we measured efficacy by measuring fatalities. If you treat all deaths as equal your minimizing function will be narrow viewed.
1. Save drunk drivers but kill trees
2. Save drunk drivers but kill innocents
3. Let the drunk driver die before they kill anything/anyone else
I will always pick 3. I don't understand where the sympathy for this reckless behaviour comes from